To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

University disputes union
Ed. Sote: As in all negotiating
situations, there are two viewpoints present in the current controversy concerning the collective bargaining process of USF
staff. The administration is
invited to respond to the following article at their convenience in
the neat /mure.
Representatives of the staff of
the University of San Francisco
met with George Davis, President of the Office and Professional Employees Union, Local
#3 on Wednesday, April 10, to
discuss the progress of their
negotiations with the administration.
Davis noted that a "change in
the posture of the negotiations
"had occurred since the Federal
Mediation Service had stepped
in to ensure that the two groups
would continue meeting. Davis
termed the administration's
acceptance of the federal
intervention "grudging", but
pointed out that the Mediation
Service has no authority to force
either party to do anything other
than meet.
Several areas of debate still separate the administration's view
from the union's, according to
Davis, these being:
I) Holidays — the University
will permit two guaranteed holidays, with eight other being pos
sible at the university's discretion. The union is pushing to
increase the guaranteed holidays, and to get time and a half
for overtime work on holidays.
2) Vacations the University
has proposed that an employee
be given 10 days vacation after
one year of service. The union
wants this amount increased on a
cumulative basis.
3) Leaves of abscence the
union believes that maternity
leaves should be allowed to begin at the end of any paid sick
leave.
4) Stewards — the union and
University differ as to the num-
(Continued on Page 10)
George Davis, president of Office and Professional
Employees #3
SAn fRAn
Vol. 69 No. 2
ASUSF Senate meets:
Activities fee raised
foghoen
April 19. 1974
Open hearings on grading approved
Expressing its sincere regrets
at doing so, the ASUSF Senate
approved an increase in the student activity fee at its last meeting, Tuesday, April 9th.
The fee will increase from its
present $32 to $35 next year.
ASUSF fees have never gone up
in the past, and the new increase
was justified on the grounds of I)
increasing costs to the various
services it provides (ie an 11
per cent hike in printing costs for
the Foghorn) and 2) decreasing
enrollment, and hence a decrease in the total student budget.
"Without the increase,"
explained one student Senator,
"we wouldn't be able to provide
even the bare minimum of services. As it is we'll have to cut
some areas."
The increase was grudgingly
endorsed by the ASUSF Finance Committee and by ASUSF
President Jim Dignan as a
"necessary" increase. The vote
on the Senate for the increase
was unanimous, and each Senator in turn expressed his or her
regret at the necessity ofthe hike.
In other important business,
the Senate considered a motion
sponsored by Non-Residents'
Council Chairman Mark Bren-
nan which would have created
new by-laws for the ASUSF
Budget Committee, which is a
committee of the whole of the
Senate, meeting yearly to
allocate the $100,000+ student
budget. The proposal would
have taken the chairmanship ol
that Senate committee from the
ASUSF Vice-President, and
placed it in the hands of the
ASUSF President Pro-Tem-
pore, a member of the Senate.
After the controversial motion
was accepted. Vice-President
Bob Julian ruled it unconstitutional. His ruling was appealed,
and the vote on the appeal was
six in favor of overturning his
ruling, two against, and four abstentions. Julian declared this a
"tie vote", and proceded to
"break to tie", voting against the
motion.
Although the motion could
not be reconsidered at that meeting, its authors announced after
the meeting that they would take
Julian to Student Court on the
issue.
Open hearings of the University Senate Committee on Grading will be held on Tuesday,
April 23rd and Wednesday,
April 24th from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m.
in Harney Science Center, room
127.
The open hearings will give the
Committee, commissioned by
the Senate over two years ago, an
opportunity to communicate its
findings thus far to the University community, and to hear the
opinions of those attending.
Major changes in the grading
system at USF will be recommended to the Senate by the
Committee, thus the opinions
expressed at the hearings may
have an important effect on the
University's policy on grades.
Copies of the Committee's
report are now available at the
reserve desk in Gleeson Library.
A brief summary of that report
was presented to the Foghorn by
Alan Heineman, Vice Chairman
of the Committee and reads as
follows:
"... our problem was to devise a method of evaluation
which would achieve the University's academic goals while
facing up to the reality of grades
as a passport to graduate schools
and jobs, a method which would
be sufficiently flexible to reflect
the divergent views of the University community while
enunciating a coherent policy for
all. Having rejected as unsuitable to these purposes for one
reason or another the exclusive
use of either the written evaluation, the pass-fail system, or a
combination thereof, the Committee decided that some modification of our current mixed system best satisfied these purposes. Two alternatives then presented themselves, which the
Committee offers to the Senate
for consideration.
"Alternative I: Every faculty
member shall have the option of
offering any of his courses solely
on a pass-fail basis, solely on a
letter-grade basis, or with the
choice given to the individual
student. Such a system upholds
the principle of academic freedom by allowing the professor to
define the operational standards
of his classes. Since a student
makes an implicit commitment
to a course when he matriculates, his rights would remain
unimpinged upon, while his
choices would be broadened. To
insure the student's rights, the
grading policy must be stated in
the course schedule.
"Alternative 11: A letter grade
shall be required only in those
courses which compose the program of a major and minor; all
others, including University requirements, may be taken on the
basis of pass-fail. Such a system
minimizes the dangers inherent
in the present policy and offers
the student increased options,
while taking into account the fact
that graded evaluation in the
field of emphasis is of prime
interest to potential employers
and to graduate registrars and
admissions officers.
"It should be clear that
Alternative I places the primary
choice with the individual faculty
member, while Alternative II
places the primary choice with
the individual student in
conjunction with his major department."
The committee urges students, faculty, and administrators to come to one or both ofthe
hearings, to ask the committee
any questions that may arise and
to make their views known.
Young Demo president candidate
Foreign drug penalties enforced
Gibbs Brown, president ofthe
University of San Francisco
Young Democrats, has
announced his candidacy for
president of the California
Young Democrats. Brown has
been active in USF campus
politics as well as the head organizer for the USF McGovern
camaign in 1972.
Brown's plans for the future of
the California Young Democrats involve the "building of the
YD's into the grass roots organization which it once was."
"The people of this country
have realized that Nixon and the
Republican Party are the servants of special interests, not the
people. (Brown states.) "We
must organize now to ensure
democratic victories in
November."
Brown desires to coalesce
people into active support for the
principles and the ideals of the
Democratic Party, and its
candidates."
Brown wishes to reinforce the
liberal ideology by making a firm
stand against such laws or
lawmakers who impair the rights
ofthe individual. Specifically, "a
criterian for support of any candidate", says Brown, "would be
his or her commitment to the
rights of collective bargaining by
those currently subject to
economic injustice. For
example, the farmworkers deserve vigorous support."
Brown feels the term of one
year would enable an organizational effort to effect the November elections. "It will be the
strength of the Democratic party
with the American people that
will stop Nixon's reign," he
concluded.
Approximately 1,000 American, most of them young, are in
jails abroad today on charges of
use, possession, trafficking or
smuggling of illegal drugs —
from hashish to cocaine and
heroin.
Despite the Department of
State's intensive efforts to forewarn prospective travellers ofthe
severe penalties invoked by foreign countries for violations of
their drug laws, many Americans appear to discount the possibility that they can't be protected by the U.S. Government.
It is essential that all prospective travellers be aware of the
following facts before embarking on a journey abroad:
1. Foreign governments are
not more tolerant of drug use,
nor are they more permissive in
their drug laws and law enforcement, than is the United States.
On the contrary, most countries
are far stricter, and their judi-
from the British-American system. Some foreign countries do
not include a jury trial.
2. Pre-trial detention, which
may involve solitary confinement for months in primitive prison conditions, is the rule rather
than the exception.
3. Penalties for possession of
trafficking in any kind of narcotics can mean a minimum of six
years at hard labor and a heavy
fine in many countries. In a few it
could mean a death sentence.
4. Prosecution of drug offenders is being intensified
abroad. Arrests are being made
everywhere within the territorial
jurisdiction of a country, including territorial waters and air
space, as well as ports of entry.
US laws do not protect Americans who violate foreign laws.
They are subject to the same
penalties and treatment for drug
violations as are nationals ofthe
country in which they are arrested.

University disputes union
Ed. Sote: As in all negotiating
situations, there are two viewpoints present in the current controversy concerning the collective bargaining process of USF
staff. The administration is
invited to respond to the following article at their convenience in
the neat /mure.
Representatives of the staff of
the University of San Francisco
met with George Davis, President of the Office and Professional Employees Union, Local
#3 on Wednesday, April 10, to
discuss the progress of their
negotiations with the administration.
Davis noted that a "change in
the posture of the negotiations
"had occurred since the Federal
Mediation Service had stepped
in to ensure that the two groups
would continue meeting. Davis
termed the administration's
acceptance of the federal
intervention "grudging", but
pointed out that the Mediation
Service has no authority to force
either party to do anything other
than meet.
Several areas of debate still separate the administration's view
from the union's, according to
Davis, these being:
I) Holidays — the University
will permit two guaranteed holidays, with eight other being pos
sible at the university's discretion. The union is pushing to
increase the guaranteed holidays, and to get time and a half
for overtime work on holidays.
2) Vacations the University
has proposed that an employee
be given 10 days vacation after
one year of service. The union
wants this amount increased on a
cumulative basis.
3) Leaves of abscence the
union believes that maternity
leaves should be allowed to begin at the end of any paid sick
leave.
4) Stewards — the union and
University differ as to the num-
(Continued on Page 10)
George Davis, president of Office and Professional
Employees #3
SAn fRAn
Vol. 69 No. 2
ASUSF Senate meets:
Activities fee raised
foghoen
April 19. 1974
Open hearings on grading approved
Expressing its sincere regrets
at doing so, the ASUSF Senate
approved an increase in the student activity fee at its last meeting, Tuesday, April 9th.
The fee will increase from its
present $32 to $35 next year.
ASUSF fees have never gone up
in the past, and the new increase
was justified on the grounds of I)
increasing costs to the various
services it provides (ie an 11
per cent hike in printing costs for
the Foghorn) and 2) decreasing
enrollment, and hence a decrease in the total student budget.
"Without the increase,"
explained one student Senator,
"we wouldn't be able to provide
even the bare minimum of services. As it is we'll have to cut
some areas."
The increase was grudgingly
endorsed by the ASUSF Finance Committee and by ASUSF
President Jim Dignan as a
"necessary" increase. The vote
on the Senate for the increase
was unanimous, and each Senator in turn expressed his or her
regret at the necessity ofthe hike.
In other important business,
the Senate considered a motion
sponsored by Non-Residents'
Council Chairman Mark Bren-
nan which would have created
new by-laws for the ASUSF
Budget Committee, which is a
committee of the whole of the
Senate, meeting yearly to
allocate the $100,000+ student
budget. The proposal would
have taken the chairmanship ol
that Senate committee from the
ASUSF Vice-President, and
placed it in the hands of the
ASUSF President Pro-Tem-
pore, a member of the Senate.
After the controversial motion
was accepted. Vice-President
Bob Julian ruled it unconstitutional. His ruling was appealed,
and the vote on the appeal was
six in favor of overturning his
ruling, two against, and four abstentions. Julian declared this a
"tie vote", and proceded to
"break to tie", voting against the
motion.
Although the motion could
not be reconsidered at that meeting, its authors announced after
the meeting that they would take
Julian to Student Court on the
issue.
Open hearings of the University Senate Committee on Grading will be held on Tuesday,
April 23rd and Wednesday,
April 24th from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m.
in Harney Science Center, room
127.
The open hearings will give the
Committee, commissioned by
the Senate over two years ago, an
opportunity to communicate its
findings thus far to the University community, and to hear the
opinions of those attending.
Major changes in the grading
system at USF will be recommended to the Senate by the
Committee, thus the opinions
expressed at the hearings may
have an important effect on the
University's policy on grades.
Copies of the Committee's
report are now available at the
reserve desk in Gleeson Library.
A brief summary of that report
was presented to the Foghorn by
Alan Heineman, Vice Chairman
of the Committee and reads as
follows:
"... our problem was to devise a method of evaluation
which would achieve the University's academic goals while
facing up to the reality of grades
as a passport to graduate schools
and jobs, a method which would
be sufficiently flexible to reflect
the divergent views of the University community while
enunciating a coherent policy for
all. Having rejected as unsuitable to these purposes for one
reason or another the exclusive
use of either the written evaluation, the pass-fail system, or a
combination thereof, the Committee decided that some modification of our current mixed system best satisfied these purposes. Two alternatives then presented themselves, which the
Committee offers to the Senate
for consideration.
"Alternative I: Every faculty
member shall have the option of
offering any of his courses solely
on a pass-fail basis, solely on a
letter-grade basis, or with the
choice given to the individual
student. Such a system upholds
the principle of academic freedom by allowing the professor to
define the operational standards
of his classes. Since a student
makes an implicit commitment
to a course when he matriculates, his rights would remain
unimpinged upon, while his
choices would be broadened. To
insure the student's rights, the
grading policy must be stated in
the course schedule.
"Alternative 11: A letter grade
shall be required only in those
courses which compose the program of a major and minor; all
others, including University requirements, may be taken on the
basis of pass-fail. Such a system
minimizes the dangers inherent
in the present policy and offers
the student increased options,
while taking into account the fact
that graded evaluation in the
field of emphasis is of prime
interest to potential employers
and to graduate registrars and
admissions officers.
"It should be clear that
Alternative I places the primary
choice with the individual faculty
member, while Alternative II
places the primary choice with
the individual student in
conjunction with his major department."
The committee urges students, faculty, and administrators to come to one or both ofthe
hearings, to ask the committee
any questions that may arise and
to make their views known.
Young Demo president candidate
Foreign drug penalties enforced
Gibbs Brown, president ofthe
University of San Francisco
Young Democrats, has
announced his candidacy for
president of the California
Young Democrats. Brown has
been active in USF campus
politics as well as the head organizer for the USF McGovern
camaign in 1972.
Brown's plans for the future of
the California Young Democrats involve the "building of the
YD's into the grass roots organization which it once was."
"The people of this country
have realized that Nixon and the
Republican Party are the servants of special interests, not the
people. (Brown states.) "We
must organize now to ensure
democratic victories in
November."
Brown desires to coalesce
people into active support for the
principles and the ideals of the
Democratic Party, and its
candidates."
Brown wishes to reinforce the
liberal ideology by making a firm
stand against such laws or
lawmakers who impair the rights
ofthe individual. Specifically, "a
criterian for support of any candidate", says Brown, "would be
his or her commitment to the
rights of collective bargaining by
those currently subject to
economic injustice. For
example, the farmworkers deserve vigorous support."
Brown feels the term of one
year would enable an organizational effort to effect the November elections. "It will be the
strength of the Democratic party
with the American people that
will stop Nixon's reign," he
concluded.
Approximately 1,000 American, most of them young, are in
jails abroad today on charges of
use, possession, trafficking or
smuggling of illegal drugs —
from hashish to cocaine and
heroin.
Despite the Department of
State's intensive efforts to forewarn prospective travellers ofthe
severe penalties invoked by foreign countries for violations of
their drug laws, many Americans appear to discount the possibility that they can't be protected by the U.S. Government.
It is essential that all prospective travellers be aware of the
following facts before embarking on a journey abroad:
1. Foreign governments are
not more tolerant of drug use,
nor are they more permissive in
their drug laws and law enforcement, than is the United States.
On the contrary, most countries
are far stricter, and their judi-
from the British-American system. Some foreign countries do
not include a jury trial.
2. Pre-trial detention, which
may involve solitary confinement for months in primitive prison conditions, is the rule rather
than the exception.
3. Penalties for possession of
trafficking in any kind of narcotics can mean a minimum of six
years at hard labor and a heavy
fine in many countries. In a few it
could mean a death sentence.
4. Prosecution of drug offenders is being intensified
abroad. Arrests are being made
everywhere within the territorial
jurisdiction of a country, including territorial waters and air
space, as well as ports of entry.
US laws do not protect Americans who violate foreign laws.
They are subject to the same
penalties and treatment for drug
violations as are nationals ofthe
country in which they are arrested.